Re: What is Maque/Mahjong?(was Winds Order)

On Sep 25, 10:14?pm, al <a...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

MJ is probably evolved from Zhipai. There's also no square hole in the
ace of the coins.

OK. By the tone of your question, I wonder if you too incline to agree
with the money-based concept.
Let's borrow a bit of "critical thinking" and apply it to the question
here.

Hang on. You did not acknowledge ithinc's answer - to your claim about
the hole - even though you quoted ithinc's answer, Allan. I too have
consulted my files on playing cards and observed that sometimes the
actual hole is round and surrounded by a small square double frame and
sometimes it is square and similarly surrounded by a square frame.
Even on the square holed cards some of the holes appear round due to
their very small diameter.

Why bother using symbols? Symbols like a 9-hong with multiple
concentric circles for something that can be easily and explicitly
describes as '"9 C", C for tenth of a cent (replaced) in Chinese for
example. The numerals were available as in 'wan'. Look at the 8-sous.
Manufacturing work compared to a simple "8 H" (where H is for hundred,
for example.

Same argument can be levelled at the pasteboard card packs. Again, the
issue is that the pictorial representations are themselves symbols and
they existed in various forms and in various degrees of abstraction.

You are arguing for just different types of symbols. But your
numerical symbol examples did appear in pasteboard card packs, in
cards of the Hakka, according to Prunner. Playing card packs appeared
in specific styles of representations/symbols. Why they did not use
one set of symbols rather than another is an interesting question, but
again I do not think it is relevant to the issue. What is relevant is
that maque is a card game that can be firmly placed in the context of
traditions - both of manufacture and of playing - of Chinese playing
card culture.

[snip]
Symbols stand for something else, by virtue of the fact they are
symbols, not the specific objects themselves.

As I understand it, I think your definition of 'symbols' is too
narrow. According to my understanding, any representation of something
is regarded as a symbol of it.

Names came about because
early players had to call them something what the symbols look like to
identify all the cards in order to communicate in play.

I agree with this. However, I do not think, as I have argued, that
this is correct about the very early suit names as described by early
sources (see below).

Using symbols was a strong indication of breaking away from all the
old games of so-called "money-based" generation.Symbols could be
considered the demarcation point, even if some old games existed on
money-base concept. This is creative thinking as well as critical
thinking.

[snip]
So I am saying although coins were shown on the faces of old cards,
the new symbols are not carrying coins in meaningless combination of
denominations. A much simpler engraving job could have done to do the
work if they were all cash coins.

With reference to the cash denominations as used in 4 and 3 suited
playing cards of the type you have in mind, there are descriptions by
Lu Rong (1436 - 1494) and Pan Zhiheng (1556 - 1622). Why they chose
those denominations is a relevant question. However, the point is that
these denominations were in existence, based on early sources and they
were still in existence during the 19th and 20th century in pasteboard
card packs.

"A much simpler job" is how you would approach it. The pictorial type
of symbols were used in pasteboard card packs and, clearly, this type
of representation continued to be used in maque as well. Other types
of card packs sported just the number and value marks symbols.

Arguing that because the symbols are not what you think they should be
then the symbols are therefore not cash coins is a non sequitur Allan.
You have not taken into account the playing card context in which
maque is imbedded.

You have been always saying the ace of the Bamboos is a sparrow. Is it
always has a mouth, two eyes, two wings and a tail,etc? What's the
features to differentiate sparrows from other birds? Are these
features all existing in the ace of the Bamboos?

In abstract art which is what symbols usually use, the key feature is
what is needed. For a bird, wings are the most distinguishing feature.
I believe if you look at any of the Ace-bamboo cards in the old sets,
you would see 2 vertical lines on each side as an abstract image of
wings.

All this argument boils down to you intepreting the symbols to be one
thing rather than another. But, again..... give us some evidential
support.

Cheers

.

Relevant Pages

  • responsible bright drug as it were Tims tear
    ... turnstile in a subway on one token by doubling up. ... Notice the color of the card used by people in your age ... Size up the coins with a token from ... The only really free land is available in Alaska ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Re: What is Maque/Mahjong?(was Winds Order)
    ... Let's borrow a bit of "critical thinking" and apply it to the question ... Then I would say those symbols may not be all coins. ... Same argument can be levelled at the pasteboard card packs. ...
    (rec.games.mahjong)
  • Re: CH4: the truth about female desire
    ... > from the coins anyway. ... > These days I mostly use my chip-and-pin card as it solves both of the ... I put in my PIN for my Visa ... > missing bar code label. ...
    (uk.media.tv.misc)
  • Re: Christmas lights - a good financial thermometer
    ... the shops to just to spend 35 pennies, cash, each time. ... Just three coins will suffice. ... It takes seconds to pay by card and is probably quicker that the time it ... to the credit card paid bill. ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: Why the planes did not crumple
    ... hard objects slice into softer ... extraordinaire Chris Ferguson can throw ordinary playing cards through a ... The same card pushed gently into the carrot does indeed ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)